Write Idea, Wrong Century

Jump to Comments

As featured on Crooks and Liars

So, let me get this straight: I’m defending Abraham Lincoln from Northwest REPUBLICANS? Blog WAR (between the states)!

Infamous trampler of Southern Rights?

I took offense today. I took offense at a posting that I wouldn’t have even seen, had not the Mighty Washington Post named its blog one of the five best blogs in Oregon. Another of those five best blogs had a link to mine, and as I followed the trackback, I discovered the BlueOregon post on the Washington Post’s post.

And, in the Washington Post’s post, “Write Idea” was named, and I — foolishly, as it turns out — clicked on the link. And here was what I found:

American Civil War: The South Was Right

OK. My regular readers will remember that my post on the neo-Confederate movement and all of its implications, “Slavery — It’s Not Over” was featured on Crooks and Liars on January 1, 2008.

Eerily, it is a “prebuttal” to the pseudo-academic writings of someone calling himself oh-so-pretentiously “Publius.” As our local Howie Rich rep Kurt Weber calls himself “Silence Dogood” after Ben Franklin’s famous Boston newspaper pseudonym, so “Publius” was the Federalist Papers pseudonym of:

• Federalist Papers under the shared pseudonym “Publius” by Alexander Hamilton (c. 52 articles), James Madison (28 articles) and John Jay (five articles) (Wikipedia)

But I took offense in my comment on the Washington Post’s article site (and in a somewhat more detailed version at BlueOregon).

Why?

Because this American version of Holocaust Denial isn’t just academic. It’s the basis of a whole neo-Confederate movement, and some of the ugliest stuff in politics today, which I’ve been covering in webpages, blog entries and newspaper articles since the 1990s.

If it doesn’t bother you that one of the “best” Oregon political blogs — according to the Washington Post – is crankily out there claiming:

If the American colonies and the Southern states had a moral right to secede, than, obviously, it would be morally wrong to attempt to prevent their secession through invasion. This holds even truer in the Southern case, than in the colonial case. First, the Southern states presented a moral and legal right to secede. Second, unlike the British, the North violated the civilized rules of warfare. Third, the North had no legal, moral, or precedential argument favoring their cause.

“No subject [slavery] has been more generally misunderstood or more persistently misrepresented.” These words written by the President of the Confederate States of America ring ever so much truer today. Unbeknownst to many, Lincoln’s (so-called) Emancipation Proclamation freed only those slaves he had no control over. The proclamation stated that the slaves were freed, “within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States.” In other words, Lincoln freed those he had no control over and left those he had control over in bondage. Indeed, the proclamation specifically stipulated that those in slavery in the excepted areas (the areas that were not in rebellion) were to be, “left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.” This meant that slavery was still legal in the six parishes of Louisiana that were under Yankee control at the time and the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia. Moreover, ironic as it seems, the Northern General Ulysses S. Grant’s wife held personal slaves during the war. In fact, these slaves were not freed under Lincoln’s proclamation but rather under the Thirteenth Amendment passed after the end of the war.

This, after stating, a few paragraphs earlier:

Nevertheless, immoral actions by a certain entity do not make other actions by that entity intrinsically immoral. If this were not so, mankind would be in a sad state indeed.

And, following with the justifications that:

The majority of Northern states passed laws prohibiting or harshly restricting the entrance of “free blacks.” New Jersey shut out blacks; Massachusetts prescribed flogging for black nonresidents who stayed longer than two months. Ohio, at one time, passed a law expelling the entire black population. A number of states erected constitutional barriers to the immigration of free blacks. Oregon’s constitutional language was typical:

No free negro, or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall ever come, reside, or be within this state, or hold any real estate, or make any contract, or maintain any suit therein; and the legislative assembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public officers of all such free negroes who shall bring them into the state, or employ or harbour them therein.

Northern hands were by no means clean when it came to the issue of slavery.

This, again, after stating, a few paragraphs earlier:

Nevertheless, immoral actions by a certain entity do not make other actions by that entity intrinsically immoral. If this were not so, mankind would be in a sad state indeed.

Which, aside from being self-contradictory, leaves aside the all important question, Exactly what “states rights” are you talking about, Sir?*

(* Answer: Slavery and the right to extend slavery to the new territories. If you doubt this, read Abraham Lincoln’s masterpiece, the “Cooper Union” speech, which, in pamphlet form, was distributed as Lincoln’s campaign pamphlet for the 1860 election. Lincoln, as was traditional, did NOT campaign, and surrogates like Senator Wm. Seward of New York campaigned in his stead. Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer properly calls it “the speech that made Abraham Lincoln president.”)

Just in case you were wondering. “Publius” isn’t much of a scholar, and even less of a thinker, with a profound LACK of grasp of history. But that wasn’t the point. Here is my comment from the Washington Post’s comments section:

Your featured Oregon blog “The Write Idea” is currently running THIS as its posting:

=============

Sunday, March 30, 2008

American Civil War: The South Was Right

… The myth of postbellum American government is simple and yet brilliantly effective: “In the American Civil War, the North fought to end slavery, and the South to preserve it.” This statement contains one of the greatest fallacies of American history.

Unfortunately, the United States Government has applied its massive resources to propagate this myth. Schoolchildren study, some even memorize, Lincoln’s speeches–and yet–probably, they have never heard of a man by the name of Jefferson Davis….

==========

I don’t know what you were thinking, but this Southern Neo-Confederate propaganda is the American equivalent of Holocaust Denial.

How this kind of horrific, toxic crap gets picked up by a purportedly legitimate newspaper is beyond me.

Posted by: HartWms | March 31, 2008 12:26 PM

I made a slightly longer and less humble post on the BlueOregon site. (Note, I didn’t plug my blog in the WaPo, but sincerely wonder how this kind of toxic, crypto-racist garbage can be found on a “best of” anything, ESPECIALLY in Washington, D.C. — which was sorely tried by that Civil War– is beyond me. I am a member in good standing of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, Michigan Camp #20, and I do not consider the slander of my family’s sacrifices in that war to be a matter unworthy of comment.)

Here’s the extra portion added to my comment on the BlueOregon blog:

(Unless it was a Supreme Being’s synchronistic way of making the WaPo look like idiots).

Way to go, WaPo. Now everyone will be sure that Oregonians are bat-sh*t crazy.

(If you’re interested, my “pre-buttal” was featured on Crooks & Liars on January 1, and can be found here: “Slavery - It’s Not Over.”)

Congrats to Blue Oregon and Jack Bog for being on the list. And, if I might be so bold, leaving off the other best two Oregon blogs, Preemptive Karma and Loaded Orygun, was a gross oversight.

NW Republican? The bloggy equivalent of the late Weekly World News. Feh. Ptui. (Having been personally smeared by sleazy Coyote therein, I am NOT without prejudice in the matter.)

This had an astonishing triple effect. First, “Write Idea” pulled the pathetic “Republican Hatemeister as Victim” routine with this posting, today:

Washington Post: Best Oregon Blogs

… I am writing this post as a cordial reply to Blue Oregon’s post regarding the Washington Post’s political blog roll. This morning, Vorpal Sword (sic) had this to say about the Write Idea:

I don’t know what the Washington Post writer was thinking, but this Southern Neo-Confederate propaganda is the American equivalent of Holocaust Denial. How this kind of horrific, toxic crap gets picked up by a purportedly legitimate newspaper is beyond me. (Unless it was a Supreme Being’s synchronistic way of making the WaPo look like idiots).Way to go, WaPo. Now everyone will be sure that Oregonians are bat-sh*t crazy.

In my post regarding the Civil War entitled American Civil War: The South Was Right I present an admittedly biased, but I would like to say somewhat intellectual article on the American Civil War. Rather than engaging in a reasonable debate, the author of the above comments prefers to present an ad hominem argument that contains outright lies. I am willing to participate in an intellectual debate with anyone who reads my blog. Thus, I see no reason for the commenter to attack me personally, or for Blue Oregon to both tolerate and to host his comments.

Posted by Publius at 3:56 PM

Now, before I play you the BlueOregon blog owner’s response in Write Idea’s comments, let’s note the OTHER posting from NW Republican, who was ALSO included as a “best blog”:

3 comments:

Anonymous said…

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:52 AM

I am Coyote said…

LOL, yes the funny thing is that when we dissed him he did not call it a dis at the time in fact he bragged about it. I will say one thing for him. He is quite the conspiracy author. heh

11:03 AM

Anonymous said…

OK I’ll try this another way. Coyote, congrats on the kudos. I checked the link to B.O. and guess what - remember that formerly underemployed pornographer who turned himself into a left-wing blogger? The one who was adopted as an anti-conservative MSM-source a couple of years ago? He’s still smarting from your dis.

11:14 AM

Gee, you don’t suppose they would be talking about THIS posting, “Hart Williams Exposed“? THAT NW Republican posting contains such Olympian prose as this:

Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Hart Williams Exposed

Well to most people the name would not ring any bell at all. He does however publish a blog called Boregasm. Yet to most newspaper reporters in Oregon, Steve Law in particular, Hart has become the driving force behind the entire conspiracy ridden “Howie Rich” stories.

Of course now that I am publishing this story it means that I have been in touch with the mother ship and probably plotting the removal of another planet in our solar system… I am a bad, BAD man.

You see all these newspaper stories regarding the folks at Americans for Limited Government are not the work of good reporters. Instead it seems that the reporters have simply been regurgitating the work of a fellow named Hart Williams. … I have read this guy’s work off and on for a few month’s now and found it so radically conspiratorial that it made my hair hurt. Almost to the point of not knowing where to start when trying to untangle the creative web (credit where credit is due, he is a “creative” person). Fortunately the Citizen Activist has done a pretty good job at uncovering just who this person is. Knowing the person behind the conspiracy theory is quite helpful, albeit, scary.

[...]

In case folks did not notice, I have delted (sic) the copied content in this post. The reason? It was just too tawdry for me. You can go visit Citizen Activist if you would like to discuss it over there. Or you can read it there and discuss it over here.

So, call me a prude.

Posted by I am Coyote at 6:33 AM

Gee. Hope MY feelings weren’t hurt by this other “best” political blog. Weird that they’re still hung up on it (I noted being smeared by NW Republican by way of ethically suggesting that I clearly could not speak impartially. Capisce?)

So, guess what OTHER blog Publius (who is crying to BlueOregon that I’ve hurt his little neo-Confederate feelings) posts to?

Blogs

	Blog Name	Team Members
	NW Republican	Harry Meanwell Malaise Forever Silence Dogood I am Coyote CommonSense Zeo12 B.Slidel Dare!PDX DC Voyeur Hairy Reed 1001st Fiend
	Redirect sprenger
	Write Idea

 

Yeah. NW Republican. I guess he doesn’t mind when OTHER people get attacked in an ad hominem manner. It’s called “having your cake and eating it too.”

Not that my calling the “South is Right” pseudo-philosophy the “American equivalent of Holocaust Denial” is ad hominem. It’s NOT.

Ad hominem means “against the man” and I never accused Publius of being a yellow-bellied crypto-racist. I never called him a coward for hiding behind a pretentious pseudonym that dishonors the original intent of that pseudonym. I never called him an intellectual lightweight whose brain, if converted to an ocean, could be walked across without wetting one’s ankles.

THOSE would be ad hominems.

But Publius is cunning enough (or thin-skinned and fragile enough) to immediately play the “victim” card, by demanding that BlueOregon censor my hurtful comments, because, as we all know, the South was Right, after all, and had a perfect right to secede because they felt that their right to expand slavery was being threatened.

(Note: the Republicans and Lincoln NEVER said that they would abolish slavery in the slave states. Just that it would NOT be extended to the new territories. See Cooper Union. THIS was the source of the friction, and no amount of lying will alter those facts) .

And here is what Keri Chisholm of BlueOregon replied in the “Write Idea” comments:

Kari Chisholm said…

Hey, for the record, we “tolerate” all kinds of comments at BlueOregon. We leave it all up, unless it’s spam, violent, or vile (racist, homophobic, etc.)

Or, if it can be demonstrated to our satisfaction that it’s likely slanderous or libelous.

Beyond that: I recommend arguing whatever point is in question.

March 31, 2008 7:14 PM

Which means, I guess, that I’ve been spared, although Chisholm suggests by negation that Publius WAS attacked ad hominem and that his “The South was RIGHT” idea is less than utterly crazy.

Gee. Who the heck am I that all of these “Best” political blogs are now in a tizzy?

I am sorry, but I have a moral OBLIGATION to challenge the revisionist Southern history movement. Sorry, folks. And, it’s eerie how Publius played the “Achilles heel” card and Chisholm FELL for it, exactly as outlined in this week’s posting “Liberal Achilles Heels - Number 17 in a Series” (March 26).

Weirder still, having predicted this whole phony rhetorical strategem and response last Wednesday, and having precognitively refuted Publius’ Southern Apologia on December 30th of LAST YEAR, I also find that his OTHER posting today, “Global Warming? B-r-r-r!” is not only a cluelessly unscientific “refutation” of Global Warming, AND an ad hominem smear of Al Gore:

On this last November 5th, in response to global warming skeptics Al Gore declared, “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” Perhaps, Mr. Gore, you forgot to read this US Senate Report authored by 400 prominent scientists

[...]

So tell me, Mr. Gore, is the world flat or is it round?

BUT … I find that I had already refuted THAT post two weeks ago (without knowing that Publius even HAD a blog), in my 15 March 2008 posting, “Before Your Moron Friends Snort At Global Warming.” Worse, hasn’t he been following the collapse of yet another antarctic ice shelf the size of the Isle of Man? Bad bad timing for Publius.

So, points for precognitive ability accrue, at least. I have no idea what other future postings Publius has up his sleeve that I’ve already quashed.

But, in the midst of all this, my stance remains that this is CRAZY and TOXIC: this attempt to pretend that the Civil War was some form of monumental attack on states’ rights is an affront to decency , and the claim that the South was actually right, but whose “truth” has been suppressed by a monumental Northern brainwashing campaign to expunge the Noble Cause from the history books? THAT’s the crazy part? That I am against this crap?

That somehow, someone who writes this sort of political pornogrphy is, in fact, one of the top five blogs in Oregon?

Give me a break.

This is the sort of poisonous jabberwocky that his vorpal sword is wielded to slay. And I would be remiss in both my duty and my patriotism were I NOT to respond to this monstrous nonsense.

Chisholm might prissily inveigh that he’s open minded enough to have “controversial” commenters like myself, but what we OUGHT to be doing is going after these frauds, these historical charlatans, these political flim-flam artists, these phony scholars. And yet, once again, I stand alone, as Coyotes and Neo-Confederates take cudgels in hand to bully us out of confronting their toxic lies.

The entire “Northwest Republican” culture is a culture of sleazy innuendo, character assassination, sniggering and phony highfalutin’ “morality.” This whole sleazy, sanctimonius gang deserves outing, and yet, some poltroon locked inside the Beltway touts them as “great” political blogs as a way of filling space in HIS blog.

And, if ever we needed moral instruction on ethics, truthfulness and honest reporting, it’s from the ever-compliant catamite press corps of Washington, D.C. who have been so unremittingly honest and scrupulous in their examination of truth, lo, these past several war years. Yes, indeedy do.

I’ll leave Publius with the last word herein, which is more, I’ll wager, than he’d grant me:

… That is not to say the victorious North did not equate might with right. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase, “State Sovereignty died at Appomattox.”

Nearly all American historiography after 1865 is nationalist and based on the assumption that slavery was the root cause of the war between the states. This myth demands refutation. A new historical perspective holding that the prescription of secession in 1860 was morally and legally correct and that it was the only cogent and benevolent solution to all the troubles confronting the union at the time is imperative to the refutation of America’s “Battle Hymn of the Republic” myth:

When two men are about to come to blows, it is best to separate them. To write history from the assumption that the peaceful dissolution of the Union in 1860 was a good thing—nationalists, after all, assume that the dissolution of the Union under the Articles of Confederation was a good thing—would bring to light a vast array of facts, moral possibilities, and spectacular moral losses hitherto hidden from view. And it would open up political possibilities that are today closed off because the limits of politics are, in large part, the limits of historical self-understanding. [Note: Publius does not identify the quoted work. HW]

Bibliography …

Yee haw.

Courage.

13 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized